Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Lou Minotti · Jan 16, 2005, 04:57 pm

Like I said, why are you people fighting for a government stamp of approval? Who the f%ck cares? END all marriage "benefits". Get government out of marriage. Period. The first marriage "licenses" were for regulating blacks marrying whites. It's a tradition based on racism. Marriage licenses are an extension of fascism. End of story.

Starboy · Jan 16, 2005, 05:04 pm

Because most of what the government legislates is not marriage, it is families. What rights a family member has in regards to property, legal guardianship, other benefits derived from a family member's employment. There are thousands of very crucial laws that involve families that every family needs. What the government is doing when it issues a marriage certificate is not sanctify a marriage but granting the rights of a family to the couple under our laws. All that marriage crap is just a red herring thrown up by the godbots to throw everyone off. Gays can already go to a church and get married in the eyes of god.

Starboy

Lou Minotti · Jan 16, 2005, 05:13 pm

Why do we need "thousands of very crucial laws" for something so simple? The "rights of a family member" are no different than the rights of an individual. I think it's absurd to think we need government to "regulate families".

Starboy · Jan 16, 2005, 05:24 pm

What is simple about families? You have allowed the godbots to confuse the issue. This was never about marriage. It has always been about families. Family members die, they get sick, they win the lottery, they own property, they get inheritances, they retire and on and on and on. I take it you have never had a family of your own. There are a lot of laws that you need. If you were in the hospital and you could not make your own medical decisions would you want your spouse who has been living with you for the last thirty years to make those decisions or your brother who you only see every several years for a few days to make them? If the hospital doesn't recognize your spouse as your family then what do you think is gonna happen? This is a very practical concern of families. There are thousands of issues like this when it comes to families. The marriage ceremony is nothing. This is about the marriage certificate not the ceremony. It is that certificate that is the government’s formal recognition that a couple is now a family and now has all the rights of such a family. This is the issue. It has always been the issue. As I have said ad nauseum, gays are already going to churches and getting married in the eyes of god. It is in the eye of the state where they lack such recognition. What is so weird is that somehow the godbots have managed to confuse the weak minded into somehow conflating recognition of the marriage by god with recognition from the state and then just completely ignoring that gays can already get the recognition of god.

Starboy

Lou Minotti · Jan 16, 2005, 05:30 pm

Godbots? What the hell are you talking about? How can you even compare my views to what you are calling "Godbots"? If you want someone else to make decisions for you, check yourself into a sanitarium. But you say "thousands of issues like this when it comes to families" but merely list a couple of trivial examples. The things you mention can easily be taken care off outside of the government. Looks like the "Government That Thinks it's God-bots" have gotten to you....

Starboy · Jan 16, 2005, 05:35 pm

None of it can be taken care of outside the government. If there were no recognition of family by the government then how would anyone know who has a right to your retirement account? To your medical benefits? To any inheritance you might get? To your property when you die? These are all a matter of law. Are you saying that law is not the preview of the government? You have never had a family have you? You speak like a youngster that is convinced they know how the world works but has little to no actual experience in the world itself. Grow up and come back and they we can discuss the role of the government in the recognition of families.

Starboy

Lou Minotti · Jan 16, 2005, 06:25 pm

You say there are all these examples ("thousand") but you just repeat the same one over and over. I don't claim to know everything in regards to how "the world works" but I can see what's in front of my face. Ever heard of a will and testament? We can come up with ways to deal with the distribution of property, inheritance and who makes medical decisions, etc... without turning things into such a ridiculous, trivial mess and creating a system where the people are expected to grovel at the feet of the state. It's a fact that the creation of the first bureaucracy regarding the institution of marriage was part of a racist agenda.

Starboy · Jan 16, 2005, 06:32 pm

Lou, google family law. And I understand that gays can try to recreate the web of laws that kick in when the government recognizes a family but it can be very expensive. They often have to sue and even if they have the proper paper work many institutions will just ignore them. Besides why should they have to do any of this. All it takes is equal treatment of their family under the law. The same as any hetero family. The kind of equal treatment that is already their right under the constitution.

Starboy

Lou Minotti · Jan 16, 2005, 06:43 pm

Quote:

All it takes is equal treatment of their family under the law.

This is my point as well so I'm trying to figure out what we are arguing about. If two men or two women want to spend the rest of their lives together and want to make decisions for each other and form what they consider to be a family, "they" should have the same "rights" as a "traditional family". Agreed. (sorry for all the quotations). But why do they need a permit, aka, PERMISSION, to do so. If I die, the company I work for gives my brother $10,000. I could have put down my girlfriend. If I was gay, I could have put down my boyfriend. Why does it have to be any more complex then that?

Starboy · Jan 16, 2005, 06:47 pm

They need a permit because we live in a society where it is not enough to just walk into a bank and say I am the spouse, give me the money. Banks are funny about that. They want evidence that you are family.

Starboy

Lou Minotti · Jan 16, 2005, 06:53 pm

A permit is the same as permission. Why do you need permission from the government to write a will or civil agreement between two people?

Starboy · Jan 16, 2005, 07:00 pm

Sorry. Wrong word. Call it a title or a stamp or a certificate. It is what it is. Government recognition of a family. And if you have a family and you don't have this recognition in many cases it can make all the difference in the world. Kinda like being black but not considered to be the same as any other person as far as the law is concerned.

You seem to think that family somehow doesn't involve the government. It makes no more sense than thinking that living in this country doesn't involve the government. You seem to have some romanticized notion of what it means to be part of a society. You seem to think that it is just this collection of rugged individualists and there is no need to have any laws regarding their lives in this society. It is just plain stupid.

Starboy

tinybear · Jan 17, 2005, 04:36 am

Quote:

Quote by: Starboy

tinybear, you are very thick. If you want to contend that gay’s rights are up for a vote then your rights are up for a vote. And that means your right to live. If you don't think that your right to live with equal treatment under the law is something that people should vote on then to say that we should all do it for gays is just utter hypocrisy.

We go round and round on this. It is obvious that you are a hypocrite. It bothers you but still you think that allowing people who desire to stop other people from enjoying their rights by way of a vote is just a peachy keen way of dealing with the problem. All I can say is that your education has failed you.

Starboy

A very common debate technique (and one which I do not personally endorse) is to put forward a premise which is untenable, claim that is what your opponent is advocating and then proceed to shoot it down (in the process calling your opponent an idiot, hypocrite or loser). *Sigh*

I said the scope and extent of rights affecting the recognition of a social institution such as marriage can be understood differently at different times in history and from time to time when it is perceived by some that the scope of that right ought to be extended because the community at large thinks it should, then I say let's ask the community what it thinks. That's all I'm saying. I never said that a person's life can be put to a vote.

Waychel · Jan 17, 2005, 04:42 am

I'm not even black and I'm somewhat offended by how many comparisons are being made here between the issue of homosexual marriage and the civil rights movement. Anyone who knows their history (or even their law) knows this to be a gross comparison of events. Homosexuals are hardly being denied their "rights" as citizens IMO.

Homosexuals are able to open up joint bank accounts; both individuals simply need to walk into the bank together. If anything, a business account can be setup that both "spouses" draw from. Homosexuals can also form a living trust with their spouses relating to all issues of property, assets and healthcare management in the event of one another's incapacitation or death. Infact, homosexuals that are with living trusts are better off in the event of their death than married heterosexuals without.

All that homosexuals are being denied in the end are tax and social security benefits. These are not "rights" of marriage, but priveledges. If homosexual, polygamist and similar marriages were to become federally recognized, then these priveledges would likely dissapear altogether, making the point moot in the first place.

Personally, I find all of this humorous considering that most marriage law was created in consideration to gender exclusively. To give one example, the issue of alimony came about because of the conventional role most women played as a dependant in marriage. I don't know how many times I must repeat this, but marriage as recognized by law essentially comes down to being about law; the considerations of which are impacted by issues of circumstance as much as gender.

mr.perfecto · Jan 17, 2005, 06:43 am

Marriage (a legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife, or the official ceremony which results in this) is not a right, it's a privilege (a particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company or society, beyond the common advantages of other citizens.) And with that privilege comes responsibility (the state of being accountable or answerable, as for a trust or office, or for a debt.) I doubt homosexual marriages will ever be accepted because marriage is an institution created by God for a specific purpose. :)

As I have said before, the purpose (the intention; the end or object to be accomplished) of marriage is to establish responsibility for newly created human beings. A marriage is not just a government recognition of a family because--and you know this--a family is more than just a husband and wife. Nor is it a method of establishing legal responsibility for adopted children because--and you know this--an adoption is a legal process in and of itself that covers an entirely different set of circumstances.

The reason homosexual marriage isn't getting anywhere is that the advocates of such unions haven't been able to offer an alternative purpose that marriage exists to fulfill.

Leftist--essentially, a psychopath with an extreme hatred of the society he was born in. Such people typically deny the existence of any permanent moral standards for guiding human behavior, condemn tradition, and propose the establishment of a future society based on an ideology that denies human nature.

**Chris the Chees** · Jan 17, 2005, 09:27 am

people who voted the following: -

"Morally wrong, because homosexuality is morally wrong"

Clearly have no understanding of the nature of morals. To insist that people must conform to your morals is fascism at its worst. Morality and ethical thought are totally subjective view points, just because some ancient dusty tomb makes some asinine and obsolite moral messages is no reason to discriminate against a whole group of people.

If I had my way the only place the bible would be viewable is a museum. However I believe in freedom (something the religious right can never hope to understand), and personal choise, and while people choose to religion I will defend that right.

tinybear · Jan 17, 2005, 09:44 am

How about incest? Should incest be decriminalized and incestuous unions be recognized by the law? If not, why not? (Don't tell me you find that immoral).

Hmm, that's an intersting topic. Think I'll start another thread on it.

Ningning · Jan 17, 2005, 12:36 pm

Quote:

Quote by: libertyminded

Homosexuality is a behavior you engage in. It is an aspect of your psychological makeup not of your physical makeup. Schizophrenic people believe there are voices in their heads, hypochondriacs believe they're sick when they are not, people with severe depression perceive the world in much gloomier way than the rest of us and homosexuals urge to mate is directed towards the wrong gender. These are characteristics of mental abnormalities but society does not have to endorse these behaviors. If you have an urge to act in a way out of the ordinary, great, but don't come up to me and demand that I recognize it as perfectly normal.

In comparing homosexuality to schizophrenia you are labeling it off as a mental disease. Ask anyone with a degree in psychiatry and they will tell you that homosexuality is not a disease, and that it can not be cured. Also, one don't CHOOSE to be gay, it's something one realizes during the course of their life.

As a heterosexual, I realized that i'm not attracted to guys with blond hair and blue eyes, but rather to guys with dark features. And as a heterosexual, I am free to make the choice, and free to engage in relationships with only dark featured men, and eventually marry one.

However, if I realized at some point in my life that i had in fact become madly in love with another woman...i feel that i should still be able to retain the same rights as i had before.

Society, as you put, doesn't have the right to judge me, because society is incrediably subjective.

Starboy · Jan 17, 2005, 01:29 pm

Quote:

Quote by: tinybear

A very common debate technique (and one which I do not personally endorse) is to put forward a premise which is untenable, claim that is what your opponent is advocating and then proceed to shoot it down (in the process calling your opponent an idiot, hypocrite or loser). *Sigh*

I said the scope and extent of rights affecting the recognition of a social institution such as marriage can be understood differently at different times in history and from time to time when it is perceived by some that the scope of that right ought to be extended because the community at large thinks it should, then I say let's ask the community what it thinks. That's all I'm saying. I never said that a person's life can be put to a vote.

And I said that rights should never be up for a vote. All you are saying is that in the past people did thing they probably should not have done. So therefore we should continue doing it. This is not an argument but just a request to maintain the status quo because that is what the majority will want.

And you accuse me of exactly what you are doing. You suggested that it be put to a vote and I have been arguing that this is not what should be done and have provided reasons and arguments for why that is. You don't like it because your remedy would make you a hypocrite and well, people don't like being called hypocrites. Well tough. When you advocate an action for another group that you would not want for yourself then that is hypocrisy, pure and simple. It would be one thing if you could show that homosexuality was some sort of a threat to all of us, but you have not even tried to do that. Instead you continue with the lame vote thing. I continue to explain why it is not the proper action under our American system and you come back with this bull shit. You have lost this particular argument and it appears that you are a very sore looser.

Starboy

tinybear · Jan 17, 2005, 01:41 pm

Tsk, tsk. You sound angry. Chill out is my advice to you. And don't worry, I'm not a bit bothered being called a hypocrite or loser or indeed whatever you wish to call me. I've made my point and I have heard yours. If you don't agree, what more can I say? *Shrug*

View Poll Results: In my opinion, homosexual marriage is
A civil rights issue. Anyone should be able to marry anyone	317	43.78%
A distraction from the real issues of government	88	12.15%
An unacceptable redefinition of a traditional concept	75	10.36%
Morally wrong since homosexuality is morally wrong	97	13.40%
A private matter between the couple and their minister	63	8.70%
Other-I will explain below	59	8.15%
A celebration of diversity	25	3.45%
Voters: 724. You may not vote

Jan 17, 2005, 04:42 am	#234 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	I'm not even black and I'm somewhat offended by how many comparisons are being made here between the issue of homosexual marriage and the civil rights movement. Anyone who knows their history (or even their law) knows this to be a gross comparison of events. Homosexuals are hardly being denied their "rights" as citizens IMO. Homosexuals are able to open up joint bank accounts; both individuals simply need to walk into the bank together. If anything, a business account can be setup that both "spouses" draw from. Homosexuals can also form a living trust with their spouses relating to all issues of property, assets and healthcare management in the event of one another's incapacitation or death. Infact, homosexuals that are with living trusts are better off in the event of their death than married heterosexuals without. All that homosexuals are being denied in the end are tax and social security benefits. These are not "rights" of marriage, but priveledges. If homosexual, polygamist and similar marriages were to become federally recognized, then these priveledges would likely dissapear altogether, making the point moot in the first place. Personally, I find all of this humorous considering that most marriage law was created in consideration to gender exclusively. To give one example, the issue of alimony came about because of the conventional role most women played as a dependant in marriage. I don't know how many times I must repeat this, but marriage as recognized by law essentially comes down to being about law; the considerations of which are impacted by issues of circumstance as much as gender. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. Last edited by Waychel; Jan 17, 2005 at 04:44 am.

Jan 16, 2005, 04:57 pm	#221 (permalink) (top)
Lou Minotti BANNED (Multiple usernames after another ban) Posts: 1,337	Like I said, why are you people fighting for a government stamp of approval? Who the f%ck cares? END all marriage "benefits". Get government out of marriage. Period. The first marriage "licenses" were for regulating blacks marrying whites. It's a tradition based on racism. Marriage licenses are an extension of fascism. End of story.

Jan 16, 2005, 05:04 pm	#222 (permalink) (top)
Starboy BANNED: Repeated insults Posts: 4,828	Because most of what the government legislates is not marriage, it is families. What rights a family member has in regards to property, legal guardianship, other benefits derived from a family member's employment. There are thousands of very crucial laws that involve families that every family needs. What the government is doing when it issues a marriage certificate is not sanctify a marriage but granting the rights of a family to the couple under our laws. All that marriage crap is just a red herring thrown up by the godbots to throw everyone off. Gays can already go to a church and get married in the eyes of god. Starboy

Jan 16, 2005, 05:13 pm	#223 (permalink) (top)
Lou Minotti BANNED (Multiple usernames after another ban) Posts: 1,337	Why do we need "thousands of very crucial laws" for something so simple? The "rights of a family member" are no different than the rights of an individual. I think it's absurd to think we need government to "regulate families".

Jan 16, 2005, 05:24 pm	#224 (permalink) (top)
Starboy BANNED: Repeated insults Posts: 4,828	What is simple about families? You have allowed the godbots to confuse the issue. This was never about marriage. It has always been about families. Family members die, they get sick, they win the lottery, they own property, they get inheritances, they retire and on and on and on. I take it you have never had a family of your own. There are a lot of laws that you need. If you were in the hospital and you could not make your own medical decisions would you want your spouse who has been living with you for the last thirty years to make those decisions or your brother who you only see every several years for a few days to make them? If the hospital doesn't recognize your spouse as your family then what do you think is gonna happen? This is a very practical concern of families. There are thousands of issues like this when it comes to families. The marriage ceremony is nothing. This is about the marriage certificate not the ceremony. It is that certificate that is the government’s formal recognition that a couple is now a family and now has all the rights of such a family. This is the issue. It has always been the issue. As I have said ad nauseum, gays are already going to churches and getting married in the eyes of god. It is in the eye of the state where they lack such recognition. What is so weird is that somehow the godbots have managed to confuse the weak minded into somehow conflating recognition of the marriage by god with recognition from the state and then just completely ignoring that gays can already get the recognition of god. Starboy

Jan 16, 2005, 05:30 pm	#225 (permalink) (top)
Lou Minotti BANNED (Multiple usernames after another ban) Posts: 1,337	Godbots? What the hell are you talking about? How can you even compare my views to what you are calling "Godbots"? If you want someone else to make decisions for you, check yourself into a sanitarium. But you say "thousands of issues like this when it comes to families" but merely list a couple of trivial examples. The things you mention can easily be taken care off outside of the government. Looks like the "Government That Thinks it's God-bots" have gotten to you....

Jan 16, 2005, 05:35 pm	#226 (permalink) (top)
Starboy BANNED: Repeated insults Posts: 4,828	None of it can be taken care of outside the government. If there were no recognition of family by the government then how would anyone know who has a right to your retirement account? To your medical benefits? To any inheritance you might get? To your property when you die? These are all a matter of law. Are you saying that law is not the preview of the government? You have never had a family have you? You speak like a youngster that is convinced they know how the world works but has little to no actual experience in the world itself. Grow up and come back and they we can discuss the role of the government in the recognition of families. Starboy

Jan 16, 2005, 06:25 pm	#227 (permalink) (top)
Lou Minotti BANNED (Multiple usernames after another ban) Posts: 1,337	You say there are all these examples ("thousand") but you just repeat the same one over and over. I don't claim to know everything in regards to how "the world works" but I can see what's in front of my face. Ever heard of a will and testament? We can come up with ways to deal with the distribution of property, inheritance and who makes medical decisions, etc... without turning things into such a ridiculous, trivial mess and creating a system where the people are expected to grovel at the feet of the state. It's a fact that the creation of the first bureaucracy regarding the institution of marriage was part of a racist agenda.

Jan 16, 2005, 06:32 pm	#228 (permalink) (top)
Starboy BANNED: Repeated insults Posts: 4,828	Lou, google family law. And I understand that gays can try to recreate the web of laws that kick in when the government recognizes a family but it can be very expensive. They often have to sue and even if they have the proper paper work many institutions will just ignore them. Besides why should they have to do any of this. All it takes is equal treatment of their family under the law. The same as any hetero family. The kind of equal treatment that is already their right under the constitution. Starboy

Jan 16, 2005, 06:47 pm	#230 (permalink) (top)
Starboy BANNED: Repeated insults Posts: 4,828	They need a permit because we live in a society where it is not enough to just walk into a bank and say I am the spouse, give me the money. Banks are funny about that. They want evidence that you are family. Starboy

Jan 16, 2005, 06:53 pm	#231 (permalink) (top)
Lou Minotti BANNED (Multiple usernames after another ban) Posts: 1,337	A permit is the same as permission. Why do you need permission from the government to write a will or civil agreement between two people?

Jan 16, 2005, 07:00 pm	#232 (permalink) (top)
Starboy BANNED: Repeated insults Posts: 4,828	Sorry. Wrong word. Call it a title or a stamp or a certificate. It is what it is. Government recognition of a family. And if you have a family and you don't have this recognition in many cases it can make all the difference in the world. Kinda like being black but not considered to be the same as any other person as far as the law is concerned. You seem to think that family somehow doesn't involve the government. It makes no more sense than thinking that living in this country doesn't involve the government. You seem to have some romanticized notion of what it means to be part of a society. You seem to think that it is just this collection of rugged individualists and there is no need to have any laws regarding their lives in this society. It is just plain stupid. Starboy

Jan 17, 2005, 06:43 am	#235 (permalink) (top)
mr.perfecto Igneous Magma Posts: 632	Marriage (a legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife, or the official ceremony which results in this) is not a right, it's a privilege (a particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company or society, beyond the common advantages of other citizens.) And with that privilege comes responsibility (the state of being accountable or answerable, as for a trust or office, or for a debt.) I doubt homosexual marriages will ever be accepted because marriage is an institution created by God for a specific purpose. :) As I have said before, the purpose (the intention; the end or object to be accomplished) of marriage is to establish responsibility for newly created human beings. A marriage is not just a government recognition of a family because--and you know this--a family is more than just a husband and wife. Nor is it a method of establishing legal responsibility for adopted children because--and you know this--an adoption is a legal process in and of itself that covers an entirely different set of circumstances. The reason homosexual marriage isn't getting anywhere is that the advocates of such unions haven't been able to offer an alternative purpose that marriage exists to fulfill. Leftist--essentially, a psychopath with an extreme hatred of the society he was born in. Such people typically deny the existence of any permanent moral standards for guiding human behavior, condemn tradition, and propose the establishment of a future society based on an ideology that denies human nature.

Jan 17, 2005, 09:27 am	#236 (permalink) (top)
Chris the Chees Moderator Location: Wales Posts: 2,203	people who voted the following: - "Morally wrong, because homosexuality is morally wrong" Clearly have no understanding of the nature of morals. To insist that people must conform to your morals is fascism at its worst. Morality and ethical thought are totally subjective view points, just because some ancient dusty tomb makes some asinine and obsolite moral messages is no reason to discriminate against a whole group of people. If I had my way the only place the bible would be viewable is a museum. However I believe in freedom (something the religious right can never hope to understand), and personal choise, and while people choose to religion I will defend that right.

Jan 17, 2005, 09:44 am	#237 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,009	How about incest? Should incest be decriminalized and incestuous unions be recognized by the law? If not, why not? (Don't tell me you find that immoral). Hmm, that's an intersting topic. Think I'll start another thread on it.

Jan 17, 2005, 01:41 pm	#240 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,009	Tsk, tsk. You sound angry. Chill out is my advice to you. And don't worry, I'm not a bit bothered being called a hypocrite or loser or indeed whatever you wish to call me. I've made my point and I have heard yours. If you don't agree, what more can I say? Shrug